A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) THE land tribunal, dharwad, by the impugned order directed the husband of the first respondent to be registered as an occupant in respect of 10 acres, 27 guntas of land in block No. 1. Situated in veerapura village, dharwar taluk, relying on the entries in the revenue records for the periods 1972-73 and on one sentence made by the petitioner during the course of his evidence. ( 2 ) THE husband of the first respondent filed form No. 7 as per Annexure-A to register him as an occupant against various persons in respect of different survey numbers including the land in question. Even in his statement made before the land tribunal he did not depose that he is cultivating the land as a tenant nor has he mentioned anything about the right. However, he has stated that from 1966-67 he has been cultivating the land on 'rythawari' basis. The petitioner during the course of his examination before the land tribunal disputed the tenancy of the husband of the first respondent. He has further stated that he is cultivating the land in question. However, he has also stated that the land in question may be given to him. ( 3 ) THE husband of the first respondent in support of his case produced the r. t. c. extracts, commencing from 1966-67 to 1972-73. He did not produce any other documents. The petitioner, on the other hand, produced receipts for having paid assessments commencing from 1945 except for the period of 1966-67 to 1972-73 up to the date of production, the receipts for having purchased the cotton seeds and the voucher for having supplied the cotton grown in the land to the cotton market. He has also produced a sworn statement made by the husband of the first respondent before the tahasildar during the course of enquiry in respect of his declaration filed in form No. 11 under Section 66 of the act. In the statement he has stated that he gave up cultivation of the land in question about ten years back. He has also produced a sworn statement made by the husband of the first respondent before the tahasildar during the course of enquiry in respect of his declaration filed in form No. 11 under Section 66 of the act. In the statement he has stated that he gave up cultivation of the land in question about ten years back. ( 4 ) THE land tribunal by the impugned order accepted the case of the husband of the first respondent and rejected the contention of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had requested for delivery of the land in question and therefore it must be presumed that the land was in possession of the husband of the first respondent. The land tribunal has also further held that though the first respondent had filed form No. 7 in respect of other lands which were taken to his possession during the course of his money transactions has conceded that he is not cultivating the said lands and confine his cultivation only in respect of the land in question and therefore his statement must be accepted to be true. However, the land tribunal has not considered the statement said to have been given by the husband of the first respondent before the tahsildar during the course of enquiry in respect of his declaration filed in form No. 11 and the fact of the receipts produced by the petitioners for having purchased cotton seeds to sow in the land and the voucher for having sold the cotton raised in the land. The appreciation of the material produced by the tribunal, to say the least, is arbitrary and unreasonable. The tribunal cannot adopt different yardsticks for appreciating the evidence given by different parties. The sole sentence made by the petitioner should have been considered in the same manner as the conduct of the husband of the first respondent in respect of his applications filed in respect of different survey numbers was considered. Even otherwise, the non-consideration of his statement made before the tahsildar during the course of the enquiry in respect of his declaration filed in form No. 11 and the receipts produced by the petitioner has caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioner. The non-consideration of any material evidence should result in an arbitrary order. The impugned order is no exception. ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The non-consideration of any material evidence should result in an arbitrary order. The impugned order is no exception. ( 5 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The order dated January 21, 1994 passed by the land tribunal in case No. K. l. r. /veerapura/s. r. /10, Annexure-G , is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the land tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after considering all the materials produced by the parties. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. ( 7 ) SRI m. Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. --- *** --- .